Slateman Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 https://sports.yahoo.com/watch-giants-prospect-jacob-heyward-000259990.html?src=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Didnt like the call, so he argued with the ump. I imagine that the ump was saltier than usual with having to deal with a computer doing his job. Also, if that got called by a human ump, this place would be a mad house Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Not a strike despite what it said lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjapirate Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 4:52 AM, MikeT14 said: Not a strike despite what it said lol I think i read somewhere that it counts where the ball is at passes the beginning of the plate. So it the computer gives sinking pitches an inherent advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 2 hours ago, ninjapirate said: I think i read somewhere that it counts where the ball is at passes the beginning of the plate. So it the computer gives sinking pitches an inherent advantage. I mean that is the rule of where the strike zone is. The issue is that umps have NEVER called the breaking ball that hits the bottom of the zone like that and keeps dipping so neither the fans nor, more importantly, the players eyes are adjusted to calling that a strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 Either the computer got fooled by the sinker and made the call too early (vicious sink at the end) orrrr that’s actually the correct rule like some are saying and human umps just never call it. Interesting debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 After watching ten times, that’s a strike. It doesn’t sink until after it passes the plate. I feel this thread was created to criticize Robo Umps when it actually shows Robo Umps are way more accurate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 22, 2019 Author Share Posted October 22, 2019 3 hours ago, BayRaider said: After watching ten times, that’s a strike. It doesn’t sink until after it passes the plate. I feel this thread was created to criticize Robo Umps when it actually shows Robo Umps are way more accurate. I created this thread for two reasons 1. To generate discussion 2. Because I think the idea of arguing with the computer is kind of funny. I agree he got the call right. I also think that if a human had called that, there would be a ruckus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, mse326 said: I mean that is the rule of where the strike zone is. The issue is that umps have NEVER called the breaking ball that hits the bottom of the zone like that and keeps dipping so neither the fans nor, more importantly, the players eyes are adjusted to calling that a strike. And to add to this, the goal of robot umps isn't necessarily to bring the letter of the law strike zone back, it's to improve on the known weaknesses that human umps have calling the current strike zone (catcher framing, home-away, loose zones in hitters counts, lefty strike etc.). The robot ump might have followed the letter of the law, but that doesn't mean the person who programmed it did a perfect job. Edited October 22, 2019 by ramssuperbowl99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.